This paper will focus on casuistic analysis of various editorial articles discussing Korea’s the first plebiscite held on August 24, in Seoul, Korea. The analysis will be based on the method of analysis described in Jonsen and Toulmin’s The Abuse of Casuistry.
For an introduction on the plebiscite, it initially started from an argument “whether to provide [free lunch meal] services to all schoolchildren regardless of family income” or “to only fund and provide the meals to the lowest 50 percent of households in terms of income” (Ahn). Se-hoon Oh, the Seoul mayor at the time, argued it is practical to support children from low income family only and it is wasting tax when children from middle and high income family also receive free lunch meal. The formal mayor’s opinion was that the government could save a large amount of tax from supporting low income family children only. Also, by doing that, the government can provide better welfare system to those in needs. He emphasized the fact that the budget is limited; therefore, if the government provides lunch to all students, it will drop the quality of lunch meal.
Ahn, Jin-geol., and Lartigue, Casey Jr. “Should All School Kids Get Free Meals?” Korea
Herald. 31 August 2011. Web.
Bae, Ji-sook. “Court Rejects Ban on Free Meal Vote.” Korea Herald. 16 August 2011. Web.
Editorial 1. “[Editorial] Free Lunch Referendum.” Korea Herald. 9 August 2011. Web.
Editorial 2. “[Editorial] Balanced Welfare Policy.” Korea Herald. 25 August 2011. Web.
Jonsen, Albert R., and Toulmin, Stephen. The Abuse of Casuistry. California: University of
California Press, 1988.
Lee, Woo-young. “Oh’s Free Meal Referendum Fails.” Korea Herald. 25 August 2011. Web.